terrible, terrible film. and i say that as a spiderman fan from when i was just a nipper. heated for the price though.

thanx

terrible, terrible film. and i say that as a spiderman fan from when i was just a nipper. heated for the price though.

good find op but I go poundland for blu rays these might be in there soon lol

You cant put a price on happiness, but you can put a price on sadness....£1.99 to watch Tobey Maguire destroy your childhood as emo Spiderman

So what's 'remastered' in this edition?

Heat for some of the other titles.
On paper, a Spidey movie on Blu Ray for 2 quid is a winner.. It being Spidey 3 might dent that theory a little..
Still, at least Peter was still (marginally!) less slappable than in those awful Andrew Garfield ones.

This. It's when going to the jazz club became the new jumping of sharks.

Jazz sharks - fear them!

tell me about it :smiley:

for me, i think the closest any of these modern remakes have come to really capturing the true feel of Spiderman is, believe it or not, the first 10 minutes of The Amazing Spiderman 2 with Andrew Garfield. It all went to sh*t after that, don't get me wrong, but those first 10 minutes really got the humour level just about right i think.

Have they remastered it to the point where is isn't a stinking pile of horse manure any longer?

​Agreed, I know I'm going to be alone in this statement but I actually liked the second amazing spiderman film and I thought Andrew Garfield was a good spiderman.

Yeah im not 100% is a remaster i believe its just a "reissue" . Myself have opted for these 3 versions of the Spiderman movies.


4k version version of Spiderman , which is Excellent. Like most 4k movies though has no extras.



Spiderman 2, as mentioned this was part of the reissues and includes the extended edition. Previously could only get the extended version as Spiderman 2.1 on DVD. The previous bluray release with a different cover is cut



Spiderman 3 - went for the 2 disc version just for the extras. Not that id ever watch em but its there. Can usually get that in Cex for 75p-£1

Wasn't aware this needed remastering

The scene is supposed to be terrible. The idea is that Peter Parker is so perennially uncool, that even his idea of what is "cool" remains massively uncool. He can't escape who he is with superficial changes, be it, a new black costume or a haircut. It's actually a pretty smart way of telling the audience this without beating them over the head with exposition.

The real problem with S3 is that it's over long and Raimi didn't want to do Venom at all. They should have let him have Sandman/Vulture like he wanted. You'd think after turning in 'Spiderman 2' they'd have let him do whatever he wanted.

if the scene was intentionally terrible what's the excuse for the rest of the film?

Shoulda been called "Recut" (or Director's Cut) unless this "remaster" was prepared to be seen on 4k/8k TVs.

Honestly, the movie was not as good as Spidey 1 and 2 but it was still what I'd call a good movie.
The "emo dance" scene was hilarious! (And certainly not enough to ruin the entire movie.)
And you can't blame Peter, he was under the influence of a symbiote messing with his personality traits.

The actual problems with the movie were that it had a dark colour palette, movie was a bit too long, new goblin suit was ugly, Venom's very short screen time (like what 10 minutes out of the whole movie?) Venom being big but not BIIIIIGG, Sandman was boring at the beginning (but great at the end with the touching explanation for Uncle Ben's death as a genuine accident).

There were unnecessary scenes like Harry and MJ dancing and cooking :confused:
and Peter dancing in the jazz club but the famous "emo dance" scene in the street
was hilarious and has replay value. :wink:

As a reference to a previous post about the 4K edition, don't bother with the 4K edition unless you want MAX 1080p quality but with no special features. (I don't think the quality difference is that great, just a gimmick really like superbit DVDs.)
I wonder how long it will be before the real 4K (UltraHD) blu-ray comes out for the Spider-Man trilogy....
The so called "4K remastered" or whatever versions are not actually 4K in resolution.
They were just re-scanned at 4K and then downsized to 1080p, maybe re-touched a little, making a moderate improvement in quality. (Screenshots online will give you a less subjective understanding of the difference but
I can't quite remember it, so it must have been almost negligible.)


Anyone know of a cheap Spider-Man 2 blu-ray (2012 re-issue edition....the one with the ugly blue cover)
that has the card slipcover included? I need it for the extras that didn't come with the 2007 version I believe. (I may be wrong though. Maybe it does have all the special features and not just some of them.)
If someone could correct me, that would be great.....

What would I rate Spider-Man 3? Not perfect but....

"So good."


EDIT: just for those who are interested, here are the screenshots (hover with mouse to see before and after image)

normal 1080p release vs "4K remaster edition" (latter upon mouse hover)

There does seem to be a difference but not enough for me to go crazy about
and sacrifice extras:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=25145

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=24534

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=24533

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=24532

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=24531

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=24530

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=24529

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=30913

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=23793

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=23792

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=23788

The Sandman stuff (I.E the stuff Raimi actually gave a crap about) is really solid. Studio mis-management is to blame for S3, nothing else. John Malkovich had already been approached for Vulture, they should have given Raimi the creative control he'd earned. Instead it was re-written at the eleventh hour to include a character that he'd gone on record stating he had no interest in.

The 2012 release is the one with the extras and has the ugly cover, the 2007 release is bare-bones more or less. The only issue with the 2012 version of Spider-Man 2 is that the 2 version of the film is cut, the 2.1 version is uncut, as far as I know this was never rectified by Sony. I think there was a head-butt issue. The 2007 release of Spider-Man 2 was uncut on Blu-ray.

I think that's the other way around, the 2007 release was uncut on BD (and it featured the 2.1 version as well), the new 2012 one is cut.

No the 2012 version has the theatrical and extended version on it. i know for definite as i have to watch it near on every other day as the sprog watches it religiously :man:

review saying its extended

Both releases have both cuts, but the theatrical version on the 2012 BD is cut per the BBFCs requests.

Can either of you confirm which version (2007) or (2012) of Spider-Man (blu-ray)
has the most special features?
And do the special features (apparently in SD quality?)
look slightly better than the DVD version of the extras (maybe due to a higher bitrate?)
or if it looks exactly the same, visually?